J-S42004-17

2017 PA Super 222

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RICK ALAN WAUGAMAN,

Appellant No. 170 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 30, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-60-CR-0000296-2015

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MOULTON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2017

Appellant, Rick Alan Waugaman, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on November 30, 2016, following his jury trial conviction 

for escape, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121. Upon review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:

On September 12, 2015, [Appellant] was incarcerated in the 

Union County Prison. The [trial] court had granted him 

work-release status. Prison officials released [Appellant] from 

the work-release section of the prison to go to work on that date 

at approximately 3:00 a.m. [Appellant] did not go to work. 

Instead, [Appellant] went to his girlfriend’s house. He then 

returned to the prison around 8:00 a.m. that same day. Later, 

prison authorities revoked [Appellant’s] work-release status.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/17/2017, at 2 (unpaginated). 

Procedurally, the case proceeded as follows:

[The Commonwealth charged Appellant with escape based upon 

the same facts that supported his removal from work release 

status.] On October 6, 2016, a jury convicted [Appellant] of 

[e]scape[.] On November 30, 2016, [the trial] court sentenced 
J-S42004-17

- 2 -

[Appellant] [to] a period of incarceration in a state correctional 

facility [to] not less than one year nor more than four years. 

[Appellant] filed his [p]ost-[s]entence [m]otion on Monday[,] 

December 12, 2016[.] [The trial] court denied [Appellant’s] 

motion on that same day. [Appellant] filed his [n]otice of 

[a]ppeal on January 12, 2017. [The trial] court ordered 

[Appellant] to file a [s]tatement of [errors] [c]omplained of on 

[a]ppeal. In his [s]tatement filed on February 2, 2017, 

[Appellant] claimed [the trial] court erred when it denied his 

[pretrial motion].

Id. at 1-2 (unpaginated). The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on February 17, 2017.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did error occur in [the] denial of Appellant’s [o]mnibus [m]otion, 

specifically where [the] prosecution for [e]scape was improper 

as there was no showing that Appellant attempted to remove 

himself from official detention?

2. Did error occur in [the] denial of Appellant’s [m]otion in [l]imine, 

as his behavior was addressed by removal of work release 

privileges, thus making prosecution in this matter a double 

jeopardy violation?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

In his first issue presented, Appellant contends that the trial court 

abused its discretion by denying his omnibus pre-trial motion wherein he 

challenged the Commonwealth’s ability to prove he intended to remove 

himself from official detention, one of the required elements in establishing 

escape.1 Id. at 8. Appellant claims that, “while not going to work, [he] 

____________________________________________

1

 We note that Appellant filed a pre-trial motion essentially challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence before the case went to trial. “It is clear that the 

proper means for testing the finding that the Commonwealth has sufficient 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S42004-17

- 3 -

maintained contact with both employer and prison[,] stated his intention to 

return to jail[, and] followed through on his word, voluntarily coming back to 

the Union County Prison.” Id. at 9. Appellant relies upon our 1991 

decisions in Commonwealth v. Edwards, 595 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 1991) 

and Commonwealth v. Hall, 585 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 1991) for the 

proposition that his actions did not constitute a substantial deviation from 

his travel route necessary to prove escape. Id. at 8-9. 

Our standard of review is well-settled:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in 

the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient 

evidence to enable the fact–finder to find every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we 

may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the 

fact–finder. In addition, we note that the facts and 

circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact–finder unless the 

evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no 

probability of fact may be drawn from the combined 

circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of 

proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in 

applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and 

all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the 

finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

evidence to establish a prima facie case is to petition the trial court for a writ 

of habeas corpus.” Commonwealth v. Morman, 541 A.2d 356, 357 (Pa. 

Super. 1988). However, Appellant has maintained consistently that there 

was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Hence, we will treat 

his claim as a sufficiency challenge.
J-S42004-17

- 4 -

the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 153 A.3d 372, 375 (Pa. Super. 2016).

“A person commits an offense if he unlawfully removes himself from 

official detention or fails to return to official detention following temporary 

leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121. 

There is no dispute that “a prisoner's participation in a work release program 

[constitutes] official detention.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 595 A.2d 

183, 184 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citation omitted). Prior interpretation of 

Section 5121 requires a substantial deviation from official custody to support 

a conviction. In Edwards, Edwards was late returning to prison from work 

release twice, six minutes on one occasion and seven minutes another time, 

and admitted to drinking alcohol on one occasion. Id. at 183. We also 

examined Hall in Edwards. In Hall, when released from prison for work, 

Hall stopped at his house with his girlfriend for an hour before proceeding to 

his place of employment. Id. at 184. In examining the two cases, we 

ultimately concluded, “the escape statute does not encompass a situation 

where a prisoner does not substantially deviate from a prescribed travel 

route, goes to work and returns to official custody as prescribed by his 

work release program.” Id. (emphasis added).

In this case, the trial court determined:

[...Appellant’s] conduct [w]as clearly distinguishable from that of 

Hall and Edwards. Here, [Appellant] never went to work, unlike 

Hall and Edwards. He stayed at his girlfriend’s house, for some 

time, and then left the house. He did not return to prison for 
J-S42004-17

- 5 -

about five hours. The amount of time during which [Appellant] 

was not where he was supposed to be, five hours, far exceeds 

the amount of time cited in both [Hall and Edwards].

Trial Court Opinion, 2/17/2017, at 2 (unpaginated).

Upon review, we conclude the Commonwealth presented sufficient 

evidence of escape. Here, although Appellant maintained contact with his 

work and the prison, he never went to work. N.T., 3/28/2016, at 5. 

Moreover, Appellant also stipulated that after he left the prison, he went to 

his girlfriend’s house for one hour, and left that location where his 

whereabouts were unknown for approximately three hours. Id. at 6, 10. 

We conclude that such actions constituted a substantial deviation from his 

work-release program to establish the offense of escape. Moreover, the trial 

court properly distinguished this case from Edwards and Hall. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s first issue fails.

In his second issue presented, Appellant argues that he was 

sanctioned for his “behavior by removal of work release privileges[, he] was 

already punished for the same event[, and] this prosecution should be 

barred” under the principle of double jeopardy. Appellant’s Brief at 10. 

Appellant concedes, however, that there is “case law contrary to this 

notion[.]” Id. Indeed, our Supreme Court has concluded that “prison 

disciplinary action [] imposed for infractions of prison regulations within the 

confines of the authorized administrative scheme, [] falls within the range of 

predictable punishment under the original sentence and can be justified on 

the basis of safe, orderly or efficient institutional administration, [and] it 
J-S42004-17

- 6 -

does not implicate the constitutional proscription against subsequent 

criminal prosecution based upon double jeopardy.” Commonwealth v. 

McGee, 744 A.2d 754, 759 (Pa. 2000). Here, the prison sanction of 

removing Appellant from the work release program simply did not bar the 

Commonwealth’s subsequent criminal prosecution for escape. As such, 

Appellant’s second issue lacks merit.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/13/2017